Breach of Duty or Retaliation?
Assistant Prosecutor Resignation Rumored to Be Giglio Related
In a development that raises serious questions about the integrity of prosecutorial decision-making and the ethical tensions within law enforcement partnerships, an assistant to District Attorney Erik Johnson, for Seminole County, Candace Irby, has abruptly resigned. Sources close to the matter suggest that the resignation is tied to the recent addition of a Seminole County Sheriff’s Office employee to a "Giglio list"—a roster of officers whose credibility in court is deemed compromised due to past misconduct or dishonesty.
This event underscores the growing friction between ethical prosecutorial obligations under Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, and the institutional pressures that often accompany them. The circumstances surrounding the ADA’s departure invite two competing narratives—both rooted in the complex ethical landscape that prosecutors must navigate.
A Failure to Disclose: Breach of Constitutional Duty?
One potential interpretation of the resignation is that it followed a failure to meet disclosure obligations. Under Brady, prosecutors must disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense, which includes information that could impeach the credibility of government witnesses—Giglio material. If ADA Irby knew of misconduct by the sheriff's office employee and failed to disclose that information in ongoing or prior cases, this would represent a constitutional violation. Such a lapse could call into question the fairness of any prosecution that relied on the tainted officer's testimony, and might justify Irby’s resignation as a form of professional accountability.
From this angle, the resignation could be viewed as a necessary step to preserve the integrity of the prosecutor’s office and the cases it handles. Prosecutors are the guardians of justice, not merely advocates for conviction. Failing to act on known credibility issues in law enforcement undermines both public trust and defendants’ rights.
Doing the Right Thing: Ethical Courage Met With Institutional Retaliation?
An alternative—and increasingly plausible—interpretation is that ADA Irby resigned because she did the right thing. By adding the sheriff’s office employee to the Giglio list, she may have fulfilled her ethical and constitutional duties, only to be met with political pressure and backlash. In jurisdictions where law enforcement and prosecutors have close, sometimes uncomfortably interdependent relationships, exposing misconduct can be professionally perilous.
In this view, Irby’s resignation could reflect a retaliatory campaign orchestrated by a District Attorney more concerned with protecting institutional allies than upholding justice. The pressure to maintain “working relationships” with law enforcement often leads to a culture of silence or complicity, where those who attempt to enforce Brady/Giglio standards are marginalized or pushed out. This becomes even more plausible considering that Erik Johnson has numerous reports of prosecutorial misconduct on the nationwide Brady List.
This possibility raises troubling questions: Are prosecutors free to exercise independent ethical judgment? Or are they beholden to political and organizational pressures that discourage transparency and accountability?
A Systemic Challenge
Regardless of which interpretation ultimately proves true, the episode highlights a broader systemic issue: the need for independent oversight in how prosecutorial and law enforcement agencies manage Brady and Giglio disclosures. Prosecutors must be able to make these determinations free from fear of reprisal, and the public has a right to know when officers with credibility issues are involved in prosecutions. This is the very reason and purpose for the inception of the Brady List platform.
As this story continues to develop, one thing is clear: ethical prosecutors cannot be expected to uphold justice in a vacuum. They need institutional support, clear standards, and above all, the courage to confront uncomfortable truths—even at great personal cost.
If ADA Irby resigned in protest or under duress for doing the ethically correct thing, her case may serve as a cautionary tale and a rallying cry for reform. If she failed to disclose, it’s a reminder of the profound impact prosecutorial misconduct can have on the pursuit of justice.
Either way, the truth demands daylight.